Second FIR on the same transaction is impermissible; interim protection granted while investigation continues.

A second FIR concerning the same transaction is impermissible, even though further investigation arising from that transaction may continue. On a prima facie comparison, the later complaint was said to overlap with an earlier FIR involving the same loan accounts and borrower group, so interim protection against coercive action was considered necessary to safeguard personal liberty while the petitions remained pending. The investigation was nevertheless allowed to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the prima facie stage, the impugned FIR disclosed a second FIR in respect of the same transaction so as to justify interim protection against coercive action.

Analysis: The petitions were examined on a limited interim basis to see whether the later FIR substantially covered the same loan accounts and borrower group already mentioned in the earlier FIR. On that prima facie comparison, the later FIR appeared to overlap with the earlier FIR in respect of the same set of transactions. The governing principle applied was that while investigation into offences arising from the same transaction may continue, a second FIR for the very same transaction is impermissible. In that context, protection was considered necessary to avoid jeopardising personal liberty during the pendency of the petitions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the second FIR was found to warrant consideration at the interim stage, and interim protection against coercive action was granted while permitting the investigation to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A second FIR in respect of the same transaction or occurrence is not maintainable, though further investigation in the same transaction may proceed.

---